Rep. Bill Enyart might be a Democrat and Rep. Rodney Davis a Republican, but the two rookie lawmakers in Southern Illinois share one fear.

Sequestration could cost them their seats.

Enyart and Davis are three months into their new jobs  representing next-door districts  and constituents already are blaming them for not doing enough to stop the automatic spending cuts.

This week, 4,500 civilian workers at nearby Scott Air Force Base will receive furlough notices  a troubling reminder for Davis, who won his seat last fall by just 1,002 votes.

Enyarts no better off: He pledged to protect Scott during his 2012 campaign, but at last weekends St. Patricks Day parade in his hometown of Belleville, several people shouted, Stop the sequester! as he walked by tossing green beads to children.

Certainly, in my district, were in crisis stage, Enyart told POLITICO after marching in the parade.

This tale of two districts is a reminder for some in Washington who still think about sequester as an abstract political fight. On the ground, the cuts are real  and so are the political consequences.

(PHOTOS: How sequestration could affect you)

Davis, who holds a part of Abraham Lincolns old district and the state capital of Springfield  is considered one of the best pickup opportunities in 2014 for Democrats. After all, he had the narrowest margin of victory last cycle for any successful Republican.

To Democrats, the thinking is that Daviss constituents in rural Illinois and the college towns of Champaign, Normal and Springfield will be so upset with Republican leadership over the spending cuts that they will send him packing next November.

The military is 18% of the budget, and it is enduring 50% of the Sequestration cuts, which exempt Entitlement spending that is the largest driver of our debt and deficits.

Anyone who spews rhetoric about the cuts being "only" 2.4% are preaching falsehoods. The cuts are not across the board. The cut to the DoD is 13%, and since military pay is exempt, the cut to Operations and Maintenance for the US military is massive (up to 50% for some services).

The GOP has "embraced" Sequestration, and is now going about crowing about what a "victory" it is.

Besides the betrayal to our military, the Republicans have tied their leaky rubber boat to a 2 ton anchor.

The GOP now wants to launch "hearings" as to why Tuition Assistance for our heroes is being cut. Ummmmm...because THEY cut military by $46 Billion in the middle of a Fiscal Year.

The military isn't posturing. These cuts are real, destructive, and deep - and the Republicans do not want to lift a finger to stop them.

The GOP will lose the House in 2014 because of their stance on Sequestration.

The way the GOP has been ‘fighting’ on the sequestration is what’s the problem. As long as you have imbeciles like Boehner never challenging 0, you will lose the PR fight. All the cuts are because the President did not want to tackle true waste. That should be the message.

This is a true statement but terribly misleading. Sequestration takes half of its cuts out of the military. 18% of the budget has to take half of the cuts. For the military it is an actual “cut” not a reduction of growth. The reduction of growth is only to the budget overall. The budget over all does not have cuts, in fact wekfare and entitlement spending increases at the same rate or more than in previous years. Sequestration is an awful deal that was made in bad faith by the democrats who always think that the military gets too much of the budget.

In the 50’s when I was a kid the military was 67% of the budget. Our congress need to grow a set of gonads and cut welfare spending. We will never get a handle on deficit spending until we get a handle on entitlements.

The Democrats are acting like they are crying about the sequestration but they are really laughing it up pretty good.

Democrats, they are the most ill-informed people I have ever met. I have friends that are Democrats, they are stupid. They only know about MSM sound bites that paint Republicans as old people death wishers, queer haters and single mother haters.

Over 70% of our prison population were raised in single mother homes. Queers have a normal life expectancy of 42 years, old people in this country will be required to go home and just die under Obama care. Somehow, with all the above Republicans still get the blame for what is wrong in society. Like I said, Democrats are idiots.

11
posted on 03/19/2013 7:35:55 AM PDT
by JAKraig
(Surely my religion is at least as good as yours)

There is no sequestration causing any loss of jobs or political threatening seats. This problem in our Country is the result of the communists take over of government and destroying capitalism and the Constitution. It is getting close and we may never recover. Their purpose, with King Obama at its head, is to turn our Country into a dictatorship and like a third world Country.

IMO the GOP will lose the House in 2014 but not because of
Sequestration. There may very well be 20 million new Democrat voters with the passage of amnesty and Obamacare will be fully funded and operational.

14
posted on 03/19/2013 7:52:34 AM PDT
by Grams A
(The Sun will rise in the East in the morning and God is still on his throne.)

Many people seem to know that 0bama is a liar, but listen to him anyway, because the media reinforces him.

I say this over and over again and probably sound like a broken record but our problem is the stranglehold the liberal media has on the information received by a majority of the citizens and voters in this country. It does not matter what your "message" is if it doesn't get out there through media channels. Yes, you can spend oodles of money to buy media time but by spending that money, you are robbing Peter to pay Paul meaning you are not able to spend it on other activities needed to help win elections. This isn't even taking into consideration the natural bias in news organizations that run contrary to conservative principles.

Many will say how Reagan bypassed the media. That was then, this is now. The media has completely sold out to the democRAT party the past 15 or so years.

Until conservatives make larger inroads to the large media outlets, it will continue to be a struggle to get out any "message". Just my two cents worth which is probably overpriced...lol.

18
posted on 03/19/2013 8:11:00 AM PDT
by copaliscrossing
(Comparison is the beginning of discontent.)

Are you suggesting the DOD budget is 13% LESS this year than last year?

Absolutely.

I have discovered that most Freepers do not understand how deep or devastating these cuts really are. I can only imagine what that translates to for the general population of low information Americans, but I guarantee it is in the single digits.

The furloughed workers should be thankful they still have a job. Everyone should be able to get by for quite a while on 80% of their take-home pay.

Let me ask you something, and I want you to give me an honest answer.

If I took 20% of your income by tomorrow, would you have a problem with that? If the Government announced that Social Security recipients were to suddenly have their checks reduced by 20%, do you think they would be satisfied by telling them they still have a check?

We can do whatever semantic dances you want to regarding whether those checks are "deserved" or "already paid for" - the bottom line is when you cut income by that deep an amount that quickly, it is almost financially unsustainable for some families.

I have posted this here before but I will repeat the story. I know a single mother who is a low paid GS worker. She has a child with severe medical issues. She works hard - she does not take Food Stamps or hand outs. She pays her Federal, State, and property taxes.

She works, and for a Constitutional, worthy agency (Dept of Defense).

She, and thousands of others is going to be cut off at the knees.

This is not moral, it is not right.

When I posted that, I got a lot of Freeper hate posts and hate mail. Everyone has a hard luck story that they think is worse, or....the hatred for anyone getting a Federal paycheck runs so deep that the wombats come out of the woodwork.

People like that cannot make the moral distinction between someone working to better themselves and the fine institution of the US military, and an obese TSA agent feeling up your wife in Atlanta airport.

I cannot help people like that. If they do not have any discernment, I cannot give it to them through keyboard osmosis.

About your first link, Chris Good who wrote the article is either being purposefully deceitful or knows nothing about the way the federal Government budgets. What he wrote was AFTER the baseline has been increased; THERE ARE NO CUTS!

“If I took 20% of your income by tomorrow, would you have a problem with that? If the Government announced that Social Security recipients were to suddenly have their checks reduced by 20%, do you think they would be satisfied by telling them they still have a check?’

Of course I would have a problem, but as all of your income comes from my pocket, and I nether require nor desire your services I think the scam is that your still getting 80%.

That being said were it up to me I would much prefer to get rid of other programs and personals whom i find far more costly and undesirable to me. Starting with the ATF, DEA, FBI, Department of Education, ect..

The Federal army may be a threat to my rights but only in the long term, in the short term theses other Federal agency’s are a very much more imedead threat to the rights & liberties of every living american.

Droping them from the pay roll would return to us much, much more than a mere salary.

AS i recall the sequestration was suppose to be across the board, not spesfic to the military. If Obama has put it all on the military that is his doing not ours.

I am sorry but that is not correct.

The Republicans overwhelmingly supported and voted for the 2011 Budget Control Act, which brougth us Sequestration. Boehner, Ryan, Cantor, and all of the other GOP heroes knew the language burdened the military with 50% of the cuts, and they also knew they had already cut the military by $487 Billion before Sequestration.

Boehner bragged that he got "89% of what I wanted" with the 2011 "deal."

I have no illusions of what and who Obama is. However, it is my own party that allowed the military to be screwed over and who will not lift a finger to stop this madness.

The difference between the 9% and the 13% when discussing Defense across the board cuts (and why it is really worse at 13%) is as the letter states: these cuts are now crammed into only 7 months for this fiscal year. Then the madness starts all over again....for another 9 years.

Both Rush, but to a greater extent Hannity (who is really not that bright) think they have discovered the secret to Nirvana because some Congressman explained to them once that in Baseline Budgets there is a projected increase per year to year.

Well, I hate to break it to them, but most budgets work that way, including company's budgets. There is this thingy called inflation, and many other factors involved.

I could throw the entire Navy and Air Force O&M budgets into reverse for an entire fiscal quarter simply by increasing the cost of oil per barrel by 15%.

I once asked an expert at the Defense Logistics Agency why the Dept of Defense simply build more storage facilities, buy massive quantities of fuel when prices were low, and then sell the excess as needed.

He said that would amount to hedging, and it was prohibited by Congress.

I pressed further, and he explained to me that the the Government does not run the government - K Street lobbyist do.

“The Federal army may be a threat to my rights but only in the long term, in the short term theses other Federal agencys are a very much more imedead threat to the rights & liberties of every living american.”

@Monorprise Excuse you ?

The very fact that you have the Freedom to say something as ludicrous as this came from the sacrifices of our veterans.

Wow . . . Just finished reading the OMB letter only. (not the numbers, yet) No wonder America is in trouble. Gee no radical prejudice or bias agenda in those words, are there, eh?

Zients writes . . .

The Joint Committee sequestration is a blunt and indiscriminate instrument. It was never intended to be implemented and does not represent a responsible way for our Nation to achieve deficit reduction.

Wow, you lay cards on the table, you better be ready to play. If not resign and leave town. Further proof of this administration immaturity

Zients continues to write . . .

On multiple occasions, the President has proposed comprehensive and balanced deficit reduction plans to avoid sequestration.

REALLY? What might that be . . . oh yeah, more tax increases. Very disingenuous. Again not serious minded.

Seriously, If I presented that tone of letter to my CEO in a crucial board meeting, thinking I would have to explain why I still work there.

Again Zients "appears" and I will check to see, he "appears" to be double counting non exempt and non exempt non defense spending. I hate when smart ass bureaucrats do that. Thats why they would never last in the private sector.

Yes, I will keep an open mind and look for the truth. Thank you for sharing

“The Federal army may be a threat to my rights but only in the long term, in the short term theses other Federal agencys are a very much more imedead threat to the rights & liberties of every living american.

@Monorprise Excuse you ?

The very fact that you have the Freedom to say something as ludicrous as this came from the sacrifices of our veterans.

Keep that in mind.
“

I have no dispute with the sacrifices of current or past veterans.

I simply believe that the day will come when future “veterans” will levy war upon our States & people in the interest of securing & extending the power of Washington.

Then they will not be sacrifing for my freedom of speech or any freedom at all for that matter. Merely Washington’s power to rule without the consent of the governed.

Correct me if I am wrong, but right away I read that there are NO cuts to OCO/GWOT.

Zients or his staff writes . . .(page 1, Basis of Calculations)

As provided by section 101(b) of the CR,

whenever an amount designated for OCO/GWOT (Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO)/Global War on Terrorism (GWOT)pursuant to section 251(b) (2)(A) of BBEDCA in either the Department of Defense Apropriations Act, 2012 (division A of Pub. L. 112-74) or in the Military onstruction and Veterans Affairs and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2012 (division H of Pub. L. 112-74) differs from the amount in the Presidents FY 2013 Budget request, the annualized level equals the amount in the Presidents FY 2013 Budget request. The CR levels are also adjusted for any transfers mandated by law.

The Dept of Defense is not necessarily a Constitutional agency -- in fact, it could be easily argued that it is not: the Constitution only allows for the Army and Navy (Marines are a sub-department of the Navy), which means that the Air Force is extra-constitutional. Thus the DoD cannot be said to be wholly constitutional.

It could be argued that the Department of Transportation is more Constitutional: this is because the Congress is supposed to make commerce between the States regular, which is much of what the DOT does (though it could be pruned very much, but that is like most government agencies in general); the Post Office is another agency, being explicitly mentioned in the Constitution, which is more Constitutional than the DoD.

44
posted on 03/20/2013 8:16:20 AM PDT
by OneWingedShark
(Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)

It could be argued that the Department of Transportation is more Constitutional: this is because the Congress is supposed to make commerce between the States regular

I think that is a bit of a stretch.

The founders clearly intended for the nation's common Defense - so much so that it is in the preamble.

The argument you advanced regarding commerce has been utilized by every tyrant-wannabe, Socialist, and Communist in US Congressional history as an excuse to impinge on American freedoms, from everything from gun ownership to health care.

>> It could be argued that the Department of Transportation is more Constitutional: this is because the Congress is supposed to make commerce between the States regular > > I think that is a bit of a stretch.

Which is why I said that it could be argued, rather than actually arguing it.

The founders clearly intended for the nation's common Defense - so much so that it is in the preamble.

Danger lies that way -- the preamble also mentions providing for [general] welfare. The purpose of a preamble is to provide a rationale/reason that such a document is being written; it is therefore an explanatory/clarification section rather than a mandate. (Besides, if there's a preamble that everyone needs to know it's that of the Bill of Rights rather than that of the Constitution: if more people read the Bill of Rights with the clarifying statement of its preamble fixed firmly in their minds then things like gun control or TSA or no-knock raids wouldn't exist or even "be on the table".)

The argument you advanced regarding commerce has been utilized by every tyrant-wannabe, Socialist, and Communist in US Congressional history as an excuse to impinge on American freedoms, from everything from gun ownership to health care.

And the only reason that is the case is because the government has undermined itself: the only way they establish such 'precedent'* (spit) is to violate all sound reasoning. In Wickard v Filburn, the case they use to justify such expansion, their reasoning can be summed up as: even things that are never entered into the general market could impact their owner/producer's consumption and thereby impact the market, the subsequent impact on the market of his [non]participation is therefore reason that his activities can be regulated and prescribed by congress. -- This faulty reasoning is further expanded in Raich where they went so far as to say that someone growing a crop of marijuana for their own use could be regulated despite there being no [interstate] market for it because such market is banned by the Congress's own anti-drug laws. This makes the Congress both immune from undermining themselves AND from any restraint imposed on them by the Constitution.

BTW -- The Bill of Rights, amending the Constitution, should be viewed as lawfully superior to the rest of the Constitution [and prior amendments] (this is the effect of altering the Constitution); with this view, the Government cannot lawfully regulate commerce to the detriment of arms as the Second Amendment does indeed say that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed: being written in the passive voice the actor, and the method thereof, are irrelevant.

* - "Precedent" is nothing less than the judiciary playing the children's game "Telephone" with your liberties and [legal-]rights. The judicial system has elevated 'precedent' to the level of the Constitution, and in so doing have devalued the Constitution and, indeed, made it less than the 'historic ruling' which they use to interpret it.

46
posted on 03/21/2013 8:28:00 AM PDT
by OneWingedShark
(Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.